Editor’s Notebook: Religion can’t shield discrimination

A woman orders a cake for her anniversary party. She beams as she talks with the decorator about the big day, the friends and family flying in for the celebration, and what the cake should look like.

The decorator asks the name of her spouse. Then, there’s a moment of awkward silence before the decorator curtly informs the customer that she cannot make the cake. The reason: The woman’s spouse is another woman.

For the would-be customer, it’s a joy-crushing moment. For the bakery owner, it’s a lost sale.

For the decorator, it’s a state-protected exercise of religious freedom — at least it would be under a piece of legislation moving through the Kansas House.

House Bill 2453 would prohibit a person or “religious entity” from being required to provide services, accommodations, employment or any benefits if doing so is contrary to the person’s or company’s sincerely held religious beliefs regarding sex or gender. The term “religious entity,” as defined by the bill, would include not only churches or church-sponsored nonprofits, but any “privately-held business operating consistently with its sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Supporters of the bill say it does not allow discrimination but rather prevents it. That is, it prevents discrimination against religious people — at least those whose faith compels them to refuse service to others based on their choice of spouse or partner.

There are numerous problems with this argument. (It’s hard to find a word here, since words like “rationale,” “logic” and “reasoning” really don’t seem to apply.) You can’t come up with a much better definition of discrimination than treating someone differently because of sexual orientation. And expecting a retailer or government employee to serve someone in a gay relationship the same as any other customer hardly rates among the tales of those jailed, beaten or burned at the stake because of their religious beliefs.

It’s time for people to call bullcrap on this kind of talk. Calling something religious persecution does not make it so. What’s more, wrapping hurtful, hateful behavior in religious imagery does not sanctify it.

Business owners and groups should speak forcefully against the measure. How can it be good for business, or for the state’s economy, for the state to give employees a free pass to discriminate against would-be customers? How can such provocative laws help Kansas companies attract and retain high-quality employees and business owners?

Likewise, it would be nice to see more religious leaders follow in the example of Pope Francis and concentrate on using holy texts and teachings as guides rather than as weapons.

The war against same-sex marriage is lost, even if it is not yet over. Increasingly, the courts and public see the blatant incongruity of a system based on equal protection prohibiting two consenting adults from marrying simply because they are of the same gender. They find it harder to rationalize discrimination based on the gender of a person’s spouse as being different than discrimination based on the race or religion of a person’s spouse.

Legislative efforts like the one in Kansas are the last gasp of those who provoke fear and invoke religion as roadblocks when they’ve lost arguments on the basis of justice and reason. Let’s make it clear that such efforts can’t be reconciled with overarching religious or legal tenets, and are not worth the time, money and effort of lawmakers or the people of Kansas.